IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaae10/113787.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Profitability analysis of different reproduction methods with Dohne Merinos

Author

Listed:
  • Henning, Janus I.F.
  • Mare, Frikkie A.
  • Willemse, B.J.

Abstract

The management of new technology for farming is important, as it has an influence on the profitability of the farm. With the development of new technology, new breeding methods have been developed and have an influence on the profitability on a sheep farm. This article studies the difference in gross margins for three kinds of reproduction methods with sheep namely: Conventional, Artificial Insemination and Cervical Insemination. Four different scenarios have been developed and for each of the scenarios the gross margins have been calculated, according to the assumptions made in the scenario. This resulted in the comparison of the new breeding technology against the conventional technology, taking into account the all the different factors. It was found that with the use of new breeding technological methods in sheep (A.I. and C.I.) a producer can increase the profitability of his herd, despite the higher capital investment required.

Suggested Citation

  • Henning, Janus I.F. & Mare, Frikkie A. & Willemse, B.J., 2010. "Profitability analysis of different reproduction methods with Dohne Merinos," 2010 AAAE Third Conference/AEASA 48th Conference, September 19-23, 2010, Cape Town, South Africa 113787, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaae10:113787
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.113787
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/113787/files/195.%20Profitability%20of%20Dohne%20merinos%20in%20South%20Africa.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.113787?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rees, Lisa & Parcell, Joseph L. & Patterson, David J. & Smith, Michael F. & Poock, Scott, 2010. "Beef Reproductive Technology Adoption- Impact of Production Risk and Capitals," 2010 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2010, Orlando, Florida 56492, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    2. Kim, Kwansoo & Chavas, Jean-Paul, 2003. "Technological change and risk management: an application to the economics of corn production," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 125-142, October.
    3. Just, Richard E & Zilberman, David, 1983. "Stochastic Structure, Farm Size and Technology Adoption in Developing Agriculture," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(2), pages 307-328, July.
    4. Phoebe Koundouri & Céline Nauges & Vangelis Tzouvelekas, 2006. "Technology Adoption under Production Uncertainty: Theory and Application to Irrigation Technology," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(3), pages 657-670.
    5. Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Davis, Christopher G. & Rahelizatovo, Noro C., 2004. "Factors Influencing the Adoption of Breeding Technologies in U.S. Hog Production," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(1), pages 35-47, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Martina Bozzola & Melinda Smale & Salvatore Di Falco, 2016. "Climate, Shocks, Weather and Maize Intensification Decisions in Rural Kenya," FOODSECURE Working papers 39, LEI Wageningen UR.
    2. Prisca Koncy Fosso & Roger Tsafack Nanfosso, 2016. "Adoption of agricultural innovations in risky environment: the case of corn producers in the west of Cameroon," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 97(1), pages 51-62, June.
    3. Elliott, Lisa & Parcell, Joe & Patterson, David & Smith, Michael F. & Poock, Scott, 2013. "Factors Influencing Beef Reproductive Technology Adoption," Journal of the ASFMRA, American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, vol. 2013, pages 1-20, June.
    4. Sauer, Johannes & Zilberman, David, 2009. "Innovation Behaviour At Farm Level – Selection And Identification," 83rd Annual Conference, March 30 - April 1, 2009, Dublin, Ireland 51073, Agricultural Economics Society.
    5. Martina Bozzola & Robert Finger, 2021. "Stability of risk attitude, agricultural policies and production shocks: evidence from Italy," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(3), pages 477-501.
    6. Gbêtondji Melaine Armel Nonvide, 2021. "Adoption of agricultural technologies among rice farmers in Benin," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(4), pages 2372-2390, November.
    7. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    8. Sarah Ann Wheeler & Ying Xu & Alec Zuo, 2020. "Modelling the climate, water and socio-economic drivers of farmer exit in the Murray-Darling Basin," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 551-574, February.
    9. Koundouri, Phoebe & Nauges, Céline & Tzouvelekas, Vangelis, 2009. "The Effect of Production Uncertainty and Information Dissemination of the Diffusion of Irrigation Technologies," TSE Working Papers 09-032, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    10. Zuo, Alec & Nauges, Celine & Wheeler, Sarah, 2012. "Water trading as a risk-management tool for farmers: new empirical evidence from the Australian water market," Risk and Sustainable Management Group Working Papers 149885, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    11. Fateh Mamine & Noure El Imène Boumali & Etienne Montaigne, 2020. "Why Farmers Adopt Agro-Industrial By-Products in Animal Feed? Lesson Learned in Algerian Case," Post-Print hal-02966547, HAL.
    12. Genius, Margarita & Koundouri, Phoebe & Nauges, Celine & Tzouvelekas, Vangelis, 2013. "Information Spillovers in Irrigation Technology Diffusion: Social Learning, Extension Visits and Spatial Effects," MPRA Paper 122342, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Dilshad Ahmad & Mohammad Afzal & Abdur Rauf, 2021. "Farmers’ adaptation decisions to landslides and flash floods in the mountainous region of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa of Pakistan," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(6), pages 8573-8600, June.
    14. Yangjie Wang & Jikun Huang & Jinxia Wang & Christopher Findlay, 2018. "Mitigating rice production risks from drought through improving irrigation infrastructure and management in China," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 62(1), pages 161-176, January.
    15. Kassie, Menale & Pender, John & Yesuf, Mahmud & Köhln, Gunnar & Mulugeta, Elias, 2008. "The Role of Soil Conservation on Mean Crop Yield and Variance of Yield: Evidence from the Ethiopian Highlands," RFF Working Paper Series dp-08-08-efd, Resources for the Future.
    16. Juma, Maurice & Nyangena, Wilfred & Yesuf, Mahmud, 2090. "Production Risk and Farm Technology Adoption in Rain-Fed, Semi-Arid Lands of Kenya," RFF Working Paper Series dp-09-22-efd, Resources for the Future.
    17. Fonda Jane Awuor & Ibrahim Ndegwa Macharia & Richard Mbithi Mulwa & Maurice Juma Ogada, 2024. "Adoption and impact of integrated agriculture aquaculture on income and productivity of smallholder fish farmers in Kenya," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 1-25, January.
    18. Bozzola, Martina, 2014. "Adaptation to Climate Change: Farmers' Risk Preferences and the Role of Irrigation," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182771, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Floridi, Matteo & Bartolini, Fabio & Peerlings, Jack & Polman, Nico & Viaggi, Davide, 2013. "Modelling the adoption of automatic milking systems in Noord-Holland," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 2(01), pages 1-18, April.
    20. Andrew Barnes & Luiza Toma, 2012. "A typology of dairy farmer perceptions towards climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 112(2), pages 507-522, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Livestock Production/Industries;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aaae10:113787. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaaeaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.